>The letter of the law is given great weight, no matter the intention of the law. You are assigning the responsibility the wrong way around. The letter, and t

>The letter of the law is given great weight, no matter the intention of the law. You are assigning the responsibility the wrong way around. The letter, and the intent, of the law have two points of interfacing: the point of execution (interpretation by the taxpayers or by the courts of law), and the point of redaction (the lawmakers distilling the intent into actual letter of the law). In case of the letter of the law not representing the intent, we would be much better off assigning the blame to the lawmakers. It is both their primary duty, and also what they have the best tools for. Putting the onus on anybody else than the lawmakers creates perverse incentive to get bribed for sake of writing loopholes into the law. When the lawmakers fail at properly writing the laws, punish the lawmakers: both vote them out, and also have the media launch investigation into possible corruption - the slip-up could very well be intentional.